Double-Switch Help for Engine Update Topic

I think a very useful change related to this would be to allow multiple players to shift positions at the start of the inning. For example, you pinch hit for your 2B and you bring your CF to play 2B, LF to CF, and stick someone in LF.

Programming nightmare indeed. I think I sprained a ligament in my brain thinking about it.

This sounds like an opportunity to bring up defensive replacements who don't actually leave the game but just change positions. Example: I want to bring in a new CF, so I shift my current CF over to LF, remove the current LF from the game and bring in new CF off the bench. The logic should be able to do that somehow, and it should be able to do it in the middle of an inning too as part of the double switch.

That's just as much of a nightmare. Short version, I have one player listed as a defensive replacement at most positions because, if you do it differently, you get substitutions that you don't want. So, under your scenario, the only way the change would be made is if I had my current CF listed first on the DR in LF and the back-up CF listed first for CF. While that's workable, I'm not sure I'd end up with a double switch I wanted(like removing my slugging LF from the game to put in a light-hitting CF).

Posted by shobob on 12/8/2012 11:01:00 AM (view original):I get way more ****** off about the state of the Hall of Fame than thinking about double switch logic. In fact, I rarely think about double switch logic at all, but I get ****** off about the Hall of Fame's problems every season with every team I have.

Way to prioritize what's important in the game.

I'm 100% with shobob here. Tec, things like the HOF are what's important in the game. That's the whole point of a continuous league - records, HOF, all that stuff.

Although there are some minor issues with the way the actual game is played, I'd say that's the best part of the whole experience.

From my perspective, there are two main areas to fix:
1) Things on the "set-up" side of the game: Imbalances in budgeting (having 0 ADV should have some sort of penalty), the boringness of coach hiring (we don't go hire individual scouts, do we?), the inability to transfer $1 million (so somebody overbudgets by $2.3 million and they get to transfer, but I overbudgeted by $1.1 million and I don't?), etc.

2) Cosmetic issues that affect long-term enjoyment: Records display (5 players only? Seriously? Still?), HOF voting (with more teams in a league than in real life, why only 5 votes when in RL they get 10?), HOF nomination cards (why does their last position display when it would be so easy to check what position they played the most?), etc.

Posted by deathinahole on 12/12/2012 11:20:00 AM (view original):Didn't know that. Last time I played SLB, it could be some not all.

Leagues are pretty much live or non-live. The non-live leagues allow live play that's limited to the extent that it might as well not exist (next series only, which means two owners have to plan to play a particular series live and can only do it during a two-day period or so). The all-or-nothing is in league setup. If you sign up for a Live league, you do so with the expectation that each team will play at least 40-60 games live. If you sign up for a non-live league, the # of live games played is too small for anyone to care about — usually a half-dozen by 2-3 teams over the course of a season max. So yes, it can be "some" but the "some" is insignificant.

Posted by shobob on 12/8/2012 11:01:00 AM (view original):I get way more ****** off about the state of the Hall of Fame than thinking about double switch logic. In fact, I rarely think about double switch logic at all, but I get ****** off about the Hall of Fame's problems every season with every team I have.

Way to prioritize what's important in the game.

I'm 100% with shobob here. Tec, things like the HOF are what's important in the game. That's the whole point of a continuous league - records, HOF, all that stuff.

Although there are some minor issues with the way the actual game is played, I'd say that's the best part of the whole experience.

From my perspective, there are two main areas to fix:
1) Things on the "set-up" side of the game: Imbalances in budgeting (having 0 ADV should have some sort of penalty), the boringness of coach hiring (we don't go hire individual scouts, do we?), the inability to transfer $1 million (so somebody overbudgets by $2.3 million and they get to transfer, but I overbudgeted by $1.1 million and I don't?), etc.

2) Cosmetic issues that affect long-term enjoyment: Records display (5 players only? Seriously? Still?), HOF voting (with more teams in a league than in real life, why only 5 votes when in RL they get 10?), HOF nomination cards (why does their last position display when it would be so easy to check what position they played the most?), etc.

You start by saying that "things like the HOF are what's important in the game", and then you refer to the HOF stuff as "cosmetic" in the above post.

"Cosmetic" is, by definition, not important.

What is important in a dynasty game are things like player introduction (new players entering the game via the draft or IFA), gradual player development to peak, eventual player decline from peak, and the acquisition and discarding of such players by owners building and running their franchises.

Things like the Hall of Fame is indeed "cosmetic" . . . it's just making things look pretty. But it adds little to no value to the core purpose of the game itself.